HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-06438
"ti
,~
! ,
~~ !
q
.
~
I,
~
HI
~
t
ti)
~
'~
~
'..
~
ii
1:1
"-.
'1
'"
!~
<I:
-"-""
\
,
,
..
,/
J
/
Ii
I I
, ,
I I
"
I'
"
.
,
'.
"
T14. I.AW ~"M 0'
f(11.1.1~N llc IJIEIDHART
1'1 'ifill Im"T
.., I), IIEUI ...
HARRISBURO, I'IlNNSYI.VANIA 1710100111
," , "I/.d,lr,jhA'fl"'l;rlli'iii.y:t,~'~~~IVi"IIli1.IOOlrt' i
,~,,l.lJ~i\~'f ,II
~1"TI'l't:I 00,..,
()
,I
...
",
ADVANCIEP IENO INIEIEI{lilD SVS'I"~MS,
INC, ,
I'!aintif.f
IN 'I'JjIE COUWI' Ol~ COMMON I'LIEI\J3
CUMIlIi:IlI,ANP COUN'I'V, l?IENNSVLVANIA
v,
, 'I ",,(1'1,,11 "i."
NO, '/(,'" ,',' ,
A.P, ORIEIi:N INDUSTRIES,
INCOIH'OIWI'/EP,
Pefendllnt
CIVIl., IIC'I'ION
COMPLAINT
ANP NOW, comell Plllintiff by and t;hrough ita attoJ:l1eYII, l<illian
& Gephart, and in liIupport of thill complaint. aveJ:1I the following I
1, l'laintiff, Ad'lBnced I!:ngilleered SYlltemll, Ine" (hereafter
"MilS"), ill a Pennllylvllnia corporation with an nddrella of 320 Market
Strel/lt, Suite 200, Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Pennaylvania 17043.
2, Defendant, A. p, Green IndulItriell, Incorporated, ill a
bUllinllall wholle State of incorporation ia unknown, but which
maintainll 8 buBinell1l in Pennllylvanin with an addl.'ellll of 4667-A
Somerton Road, Trevolle, Pennllylvnnia 19053,
3, Plaintiff, AlES, ill in the businella of inatalling wood
fired combuation llYlltema for induatrial Ulle,
4, Pefendant, 1\, p, Green Industriea, Incorporated, is in the
buBinella of mnnufactur,ing brickll,
5, In May of 1994, Plaint if f nsked for refractory brick
pricing for five (5) contracta from A.P, Green Industries,
Incorporated Regional Salea Office in Trovolle, Pennsylvania,
6, Several employeell and agentll of A,P, Green Indulltriell,
Incorporated, visited AlES for a meeting in Lemoyne, Pennaylvania.
'7, /\t thnt meat in!} John Fl'nilllY, an engineer nt /\Im,
furnished /\,P. Ol'e61l Indulltdau, Incorporllted with information Oil
propoQlld I1ppliclltionll to be lIIarle of /I,ll, Or6en'll briok produc:tu
including uuing tham illl (1) woo,j fired boil'Ull (kUII ddr~d and
green fuelll)/ (~) circular fUlnnCI! dOllign/ (3) a lower furnooll
with a reducling I1tmouphera Ilt II tlllllporature of approximateJ,y 2000
dagrees/ (4) an upper fornace with an oxidizing atmosphere at an
upper limit tfJlI1peratul'l'! of 21100 dll".lreea/ and IS) fllrnace brick in
both the lower and upper chllmbers to bll bacl<lld up by Iln Ilil' plenulII
that would have a cooling effect on the cold face of all brick.
8. Puring thia meet in9 John Frailey provided /\. P. IJreen with
the technical data on n "France" BH/\ refractory brick that /\8B had
used successfully in the past,
9. /\EB rl!lquested /\, p, Green to quote a refr'Bctory brir.:k
material which was equal to the "France" BHII product,
10. The agents of II.P, Green adVlued the repreaentativea of
liES that lL p, Green produced two productQ which would be equal to
the "France" aHII refractory brick, and would be aatisfactory for
the applications required by /lESI oreenal-50-11 and Gladintor.
11. II,P. Green'a agents repreaented that the Greenal-50-/\ wan
less expenaive than the Gladiator product, but that the Greenal- 50-
/\, becnuQe of ita compoaition, waa as good as the "France" 60\
IIlumina product,
12, liES relied on II,P. Green'a repreaentation that the
Greenal- 50 -II brick was in fact equal .in all reapectQ to the
"France" BHII product, and auitable for their propoQed applications
aa they had been explained by AES representatives,
13, A1;:8, theretol:e, ol:Clel'ed the 0I.'eenal-60-A tOl: application
in nUmerous ayatemll which they inJiltulled,
14, In pnticular, the I:>doltJil Were al'dflred for an application
at the faoility af IIIWCO, Inc. ill Capl!l Gh"urdeuu, MiJilllauri,
16, 'l'he repreaentatianal:>y 1\,1', Ol'eun'tJ agllnta Wl3rfl f.alae fJJiI
the material in the I:>ricka provided by 1\,P, Green turned out to be
unequal (101lr lawer Alumina) / and did not perforlll equally to the
"Prance" product,
16, 'l'he Greenol-50-A briclHI deteriorated prematurely under
operating conditiona well within the delilign criteria which were
provided to A,P, Green.
17. When reprel!lentativea of 1\.P, Green were notified of the
failurea experienc~d with the Oreenal-50-1\, repreaentativell of A,P,
Green iIIclmawledged that they IIhould not have recol1llll11nded it far the
operating conditionll whJ.ch 1\8S had j,ndicated,
18, 1\t the HAVeo facility in Cape Girardeau, Miaaouri, there
waa brick deterioration and 101111 Qf brick thioknellG over a ahort
period of operation.
19. The unita at H1\VCO, Inc, wer.e operated well within the
temperature perimeterll provided by AES to A. p, Green
reprellentativell,
20, The Greenal- 50 -A bricltll cracked vertically on the HAVCO
unit directly in the center,
21. Practically every brick failed in thiJil manner in every
area and level of the upper and lower furnace,
~~, All" l'enult of the failure of the product IiInd the
misupresentatiolHl of A.P, Green, Plaintiff, AJi:Il, was forced to
perform remedial work fl1r IIf.vea, Ino,
~3. lJlaintifC repaired IIAVCO, Ine,'o fUt.'naoe at 11 cOllt of
$115,663,00 tor the deCllct ive o~leration of the product which Wall
aaused by Defendant, A,P, Green'll, brick,
~., llubsequfll1tly, Plaintiff, Mil, was reimbur/led $16, '121,99
by HAVCa,
~.J}BlMU or I!lllfBJ.IJ~ WARRANTY
25, 'l'he averments of. pardgrllpha 1 through :.14 al'e incorponted
hereby as if aet fOI:'th Cully and at length.
26, Defondant, A. p, Green, created an express warranty by
affil'ming and pt.'omiaing that tile brick pt.'ovided would be suitable
for the applicationa propolled and actually uned by Plaintiff, ^~S,
27, Thia affirmation and promiae by 1\,P, Green became part of
the parties' contract,
26, The Greenal-50-A bricks did not conform to the promise
made by A.P, Green, and caused significant damagoa to Plaintiff,
MS,
29. Plaintiff, AE8, relied on the warranty given by 1\,P.
Green in ita decision to purchase the bricks and use them in its
boiler installationa,
30. Plaintiff, AE8, haa been damaged in the amount of
$98,941,01 by the breach of the expreas warranty provided by 1\,[>,
Green,
WHIRlrORl, Plaintiff l"e/lp"ctf:ully l"eqlIlHlt/l thi/l lIonol"lIble
COUl"l: to grant judgment in ita favol" and a!Jaln~t D6fendant, /\,l',
Green, in an Ilmount of /,l~o,911.01 whidl IImount l.1l above the
j urisdict ional 1 imit for compulsory arbi t I:at l.on,
goUNT IX - BRBftgH-Ol IMPLU!U1AMNiT~I.JU1lUlJWf.l'AIUnx
31, 'l'h6 aVel"m6ntll of paragl"lIphlJ 1 tl1l."ough 30 al"e incorporated
herel:Jy as if set forth fully and at length,
32, Plaintiff, /\E8, diac10lled to Defendant, /\,P, Gl"een's
agente, the IIpplication/l which Plaintiff pl"oposed to maltl! of the
Oreenel-50-/\ product,
33, The Gl"oenal-50-/\ bl"icks pl"ovided by A,P, Green Wel"e not
merchentlll:Jla in that they Wel"1I not fit for the ol"dl.nary purposea
for which auch bl"icks are used,
31, 'I'he bl"cach of the implied warranty of merchant.!lbility by
Defendant, A,l', Green, hila caused dlll1lllgell to Plaintiff, in that
Plal.ntiff uaed the brJ.cka in ita furnace inatallat,ion, and the
bricka failed.
35. Plaintiff, AES, has been l"equired to explll1d /,l98, 911,01 to
l'emediate the situation caused by the defecl:ive product provided by
Defendant, /\.1'. Green.
mIIR.PORB, Plaint iff respect fully requests this Honorable
Court to grant jUdgment in its favol" and against Defendant, A, p,
Green, in the amount of $98,941. 01, which amount is above the
juriadictional limit for compulsory arbitration,
COUNT XII - I1R.MII 0' IHPlIIID WARRANTY
gl...~tllfIU_filJLI'AR'r1m1MAIU'J1UQ81
lIS, 'l'ho Ilvermont/3 of fJlII:u(Jrflphli 1 thnluuh 35 lire incorporated
hereby liS if set forth fully nnd lit ltllll/th,
31, Plaint;iff
tlxplaII1f1d
to
lJefendlll1t'lI
agents
the
applicationa it IlItonded to make of /\,1.", Groen's producta,
inolud1,ngl (1) wood fil:l'ld bo11er/:l (kiln dded Bnd green fuelll) I
(2) circular furnBce dO/3ign/ (3) n lower furnace wIth a l:educing
atmonphl'lrll lit II temp"ruture of IIpproxImBtlll.y 2000 dO(jree/J/ (4) an
upper furnace with an oxididng atmoaphere at an uppal.' limit
temporature of 2000 dcgrelHI/ lInd (!jl fUl:'l'lace bdcl< in both the
lower and upper chamber/3 to btl backed up by 8n air pLenum that
would have II cooling effect on the cold face of all brick,
30, /Jefendllllt, /\,1', Green, wllrranted that the Grellnal-50-A
bricl<s were auitable for the particular purpoao for which the
bricks were required by Plaintiff, AEB.
39. Plaintiff, AI;;8, relied on the /3kill and judgment of
Defendant' a Bgenta to aolect or furniah lIuitable gooda,
40, The Greenal-50-A bricka were not auitable for the
particular purpoaeo of Plaintiff, failed on thl! aite, and have
cauaed damagell which Plaintiff, AB8, haa been forced to remediate,
WHBRBPORB, Plaintiff respectfully requClata thia Honorable
Court to grant judgment in its favor and againllt Defendant, /\,1.",
Green, in an amount in exceoa of $90,941,01, which amount ia above
the jurisdictional limit for compulaory arbitration,
~,.DA\lll1WJUi'RIIlIIi'1'A'U!Jli
41, 'rhe averl11entl3 of pllnl~Jn\phlJ 1 t)ll:ou\Jh ~O lira incorporated
hereby all if Sltt forth full. Y Alld llt 1 1I1l\l th ,
~2, Defendant, 1\,1', ~jn.l()Il, I11ndl'!l:nludull3llt l:oprea\ont.IJtiona to
PlaintiCC, I\IUI, lla to t.hl'! qUll1il~y fllld lJuitllbility of the Oreenal"
1i0-1\ pdcl< for the pUl:POlJtln to which IJafendllnt, 1\,1', Oroen, )mflw
that Plaintiff, I\IU1, l.ntllndod to put the hdcl<a,
~3, l'laintl.Cf, 1\l!.13, relied on the roprlluentntioll llnd ordered
the pricku frol11 Defendant, 1\,1', Green,
H, 'rho bdcltu we,:e not of the quality represented \:Jy
Defandant, 1\, p, Green, they fa !.led, and huve caUl3ed damagell to
l'laint-iff, MI3,
415, DlIfendnnt, 1\,1', Green'lf conduct '111111 intentional and
outralleoua.
WJtIRJlrORIIl, plBintiff reulJectfullY reqUlHltll thia Honorllble
court to grunt judgment in ita favo): and against Defendant, I\,P,
Green, in an /Jl11ount in e)(Cellll of $100,000, plUll whatever puniti VEl
damage a and other reliof thill Court may deol11 jUBt and equitable.
~OtlN'r V . BRBACH or c,QtlTRACT
46, 'fhe avel:mente of paragraphJJ 1 through ~15 al:e incol:porated
hereby all if llet forth fully and at length,
47, Defendant br.(lached the contract with plaintl.ff by
providing inadequate br.ickll,
49. plaintiff, 1\1::6, hae peen damaged by this bl:eBch of
contract,
r' ~I ,.t-: ~ ~
" ~~\~
\ ' l,ll "),,,1
ml, ,," \' ~
' , \ ~ \
II'
91 ~
" "I 'HI '"
[" L', I, "'"' :~
'I' ~
L' . ',') ~
\ \\..
I .1 , .)
I' \(1 '1.......
,.) 1)1' , I "Il::.
(1<- ~
~~~
.....
I "\. 00, lit'I"'n'"' I "W""',
'-""" I'....~ _ .... ,,-,lW ," ,
, ^dV,llll'..d 1':I1.,III,,'H<101 liyUI''11111 I J 11",
'13,
^,i', ';'Ll<111 1 1101 1I II 1 , IUIi J'jl")'P,).,.Il'd
~Q, 'ItJ.r,~,11l ~;,lvll 'I'orll'
_--. ~9..._
" Novllllllwr ~'\, 1')IH.
.10W, _ _ .
:9__ tf S~1l' OF C1;;,n1:oll.A.'fD Cotoi'l':'Y, PA., t!a
h~by c!J:rl= l!:.o Sh,cJ,4 01 11\Jl'~H
t!:!.s ~ucticl1 h~ c:.w!&r ILl t.!:a ~ ~d tiLk 01 tb Pl.l.l::i:!:!,
COUAr}' 10 t:ltl:'JI4 t.!:Ll 'Nric,
. .......t"'1~.4' tf:!!!"
l' ..;V::;..o.. ....,.J< _ "iI~
!h~ at C_IlWlIt C~llArr, Plio
.
Afiic:lI&Tit ar SemClS
~l)W, ~9 . ,~ o':Jca ~t. IC".-d
tl:o 1.V!t!:!.a
,
'~pal1
~I ---..
by b.cdb; III
.. C"Jpr Qt co a nr..:Al -
'"
:IJ1d ~ lo::::.cwn tg tl:4 ::l1tl:l:t1 t.~al'1:':L
SQ G.C.SWC::..,
!ll.cU6 01
COllAr)', p,-
=c :.:!.1_~rcl
19_
ccsn
:!D.VIa
~au:.l.CE
A:'7JDA Vir
s
SWCl':llll:ld I:l~ l:e!c:rc
---"""----.
s
,.-......
LAW OPPICI OP TIRANe. p, ~ENNIOY
QYI ROS8R'1' J. BIBGEL
I.O, 11,615717
TWO l'INN CJBN'rJl:lt Pl,A"'''
l!l00 JOllN J', KENNEOY BOULBVARD
BUITI lJ.:l0
PHILAPBLl'lIIA, PA 19103
(:115) 966-9090
A'l'TORNlIlY 'OR OIPINPAN'l'
A.P, ORIIN INOUSTRIIS/
INCORPORA'l'IO
...................~.........................~.....................
AIJVANCmlJ ~~NqrNI':EREIJ S'iS'I'EMS,
INC.
Plaintiff (1'\,
va,
A. P , ClRI.':I.':N
I NCORPORA'l'1.':1J
INPllS'I'IU ES I
Pefendant (a) ,
COUR'l' 01" COMMON l'LIEAS
CUMIJBR1,/\NP COUN'l'Y
No, 96-6438
EN'rRY 01" APPEARANCE
'1'0 '!'HI.': PROTHONOTARY I
I<INOLY P.N'I'ER MY APPEARANCE ON BEHALf OF' THE OEI"ENPAN'r, A, P ,
GR'" INOUSTRIES, I.COR'ORAT'P, " THB ^"n',"TIO"P MJ\TT",
1/1/;JAM1/9/'/./l/
ROBE~~ J SIE I.':L I.':SQUIRI.':
ATT6RNI.':Y F'OR I.':F'I.':ND/\N'r I
/\,P. qRE'N INnUSTRIES,
INCORPORAT!"P
, 1
',I.' 1
if ',1.1:, n,.~ f
,I {.,
, ,... .,
tt, I!.
, ,,fl' 1~
I, 'c.:
, h. iE"
, ~h!
,...
, , (\oj I'I~
'I .~j f.4'.t :1\ J
fl-~ "t;
"";)
t~ 11' I,
'Ii
"
,I
'I
1l4V""i---~
" S
,
;. I .
, , ~ ~h
M
;II~ . I 0
I ...
0\
I ...
'Iii . ~
IJo ~:h
.
m
I
-, ,~ I "E~~
/'1 ~ !!~!
.
I ...
" ..!
'''/
I
1 ,
II'
I'
.
.
.
, ,
. .
, ,
,~
'"
I:
I,
I:; .j~lI}
;,/,lle
:", 'I"
",/./
I," i\~"
1",(,,'
,. 11,'t .i~ i
,,\
, ',' \I _~~,
':I~
'.,1II
'/rJ
,
,
,
,
" , I
"
ili 1\
,
2, Admitted, !t ia admitted thllt defendant ia II l1eIIlW,Ht'l
Corporatioll, which maint,linll Ii pIlwe of IJUl'linlllHl ill 1'1'Innaylvllniu wi\:h
an IJddl"l31llJ of 466'1"A flomllrtoll I~Olld, 'I'nlVolle, I'llnnllylvllnill ~!H)!j3.
), Aftor rear/onable invllllt i(Jllt lon, aIHJWl'Il:l.n(J d'ifendnnt lu
wl.thollt Imowledgl'l or l.nfo1'll1otion uuffident to form II beliof 111'.1 to the
truth of. the lI11egatlonll aet. l'01't.h in paJ:ligraph 3 of plaintif.f'u
Complaint, 'l'herefore nnllwerJ.n\l defendant doniell Ilamo and demBnda
atriet proof thereof at the time of t.rial,
4, Denied all /3tated, Admitted aa hereinafter IItated.
admitted that defendant 1\. p, Green Indulltriell, Inc, i/3
buainclIs of manufacturing and lleJ.ling refractory materialll,
5"14. Denied. After reaaonablo l.nvostigation, anllwering
defendant is without knowledge or information 1I11ffieiont to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 5
through 14 of plaintiff's Complaint, thllrefore answering defendant
denies lIame and demands atriet proof t.hereof at the time of trial.
15, Denied, 'rhe allegationll lIet forth in paragraph 15 of
plaintl.ff's Complaint are denied am concluaions of law requiring no
further response. By way of further anawer, anawering defendant ill
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegationa Ilet forth in paragraph 15 of plaintl.ff's
complaint, there fore an6wering defendant deniea lIame and demandll
atrict proof thereof at the time of trial.
16-21. Denied. After reallonable invelltigation, anllwering
defendant ill without knowledge or information Ilufficient to form a
belief UII to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 16
2
It ill
in tho
I'hnJ\lgh n of plnlntiff'll compllJil1t, [,h''fI'<lfol'<I 1I1111wudl1H <111 I: UI1,IIII1I'
denial! tlamtl al1d damandtl tltdet proof tllaplof Ill'. thtl time 0/' trilll,
ZZ, Denlod, 'I'ha Illlegnt lonll lIl/t I'<lrth III plJrll\]rnph ZZ Ill'
plalntiff'lI Complaint Are dllnlud IHI condulllollIl 01' lr.lw nl'juldl1V 1111
/'urther ratlpon/JI!. Uy wny 01: fUI"that' IJIIIIW<lr, IJftur fllllU<Jllllbl.1
InvoBtiglJtioll anBworing defondant 1/1 without IlI10wludve 0'" II1I'ol'll1ntllll1
Bufficiant to form B bolief 11/1 to the truth of tllu IIlleUBtlonll IIU!'
forth III parauraph 21. of plalntiff'lI Compllllnt, therefore anllwudllH
defandant denlos lIame and demand'l utrlc:t proof tharoof at tho tl.m.! of
trilll,
:23, Denied, 'l'hl~ alla!]lItl.ons Ilat forth ill paragraph n 0/:
plaintiff's Complaint aro denied {HI conclualons of law requiring no
further rellponse, By way of fur.thor onswar, after rllllsollable
InveBtigat1on, answering defendant ill without knowl.odg<l or InformBtioll
Bufficiont to form a belief all to the truth of tha ollegationll Bet
forth in paragraph 23 of plaintiff' II Complaint, tharefore llnsworing
defendant denies Bame and demandB strict pr.oof thereof at the time of
trial.
24. Denied, lifter reasonable invllat igat 1<';1/1, anBwerlng do fendont
iB without knowledge or Information Buffielent to form a belief OB to
the truth of the allegatlona lIet forth In paragraph 24 of plalntiff'lI
Complaint, therefore answering defendant deniell aame and demands
Btrict proof thereof at the time of trial.
COUNT J;
25, Answering defendant incorporates the averments Bet forth in
parBgrapha 1 through 24 of its answer as though same were aet forth
fully herein at length.
3
2~-2'l, penio!d, 'I'h" nlleHutiollU ',lut f()):th ill paragr[\phll ;Iii 1111<1
2'1 of ~11liil1titf'll Complail1t 111'0 dUllill<llHi cOlwl\luiOI1Il Or 1[\'11 re'l\li1'1Il\1
110 f.\l\."th"r rotJpl.:JI1130, l1y WilY of fllrthel: IllHlwer, nlHlwed.IHl dol'el1,llIl1t
utatell that it ill withllut Iwowllll.1\]I!I 01' inf.orl1\llt1011 U\lni(lil'!l1t. t.o tOlll\
Ii boliet all to the truth of tho 1,lllo<Jnt1onn not. f<JI:t.h ill pnrll\]rnphn ;.!li
and 2'7 of pl[\inti.ff' 13 ('Ol11plllil1t, th<'ll:o[oro IIIl"wo1'1I1\] dol:ol1dlll1t d<lllion
131111\0 IInd doml1ndll atdct proof t.h'lreof fit tho t il1\o of t\."illl,
2B, Donied, After \."<Iall(,lllable invent igllt iOI1, fll1l1worin\.l detel1dlll1t
in without kl10Wledge or in~ormntion aufficiel1t to form a belio[ 1111 to
th(l tr\lth of the allegationl3 aet fort.h in para\.lraph 2B of pluintiff' II
Complaint, therefore al1rJwering defendant deniel3 IlIIme and del1\andn
I3trict proof thereof lit the time of trilll,
29-30, penied. /\fter real30llllble inveatigation, 1I111J~ledn\.l
defendant ia without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief aa to the truth of the allegationa aet forth in paragrapha 29
and 30 of plaintiff' a complaint, therefore answering defendant. denien
Slime and demands atrict proof thereof at the time of trial,
WHEREfORE, defendant respectfully t'equests thil3 court to grant
judgment in ita favor and against plaintiff plus costa.
COUNT II
31. The averments of paragraphn 1 through 30 of defendant"3
I\nswer are incorporated lw.reby as if set forth fully herein at length,
32. penied. I\fter reasonable investigation answering defendant
is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth Ot the allegations aet forth in ~aragraph 32 of plaintiff'S
complaint, therefore answering defendant denies same and demands
strict proof thereof at the time of trial,
..
3], Dellled, '1'1le III le\]al: 1011/1 /.Ilit I:ortll In PIII:II\]I:apll 33 of
pilllnt1rf'll Compllllnl: Ill'''' .1elll",1 11/.1 r:OllciU/.IIOIl(,l of lllw rli'lul L'ln'J no
I'urthllr rtl(,lpOIWlI,
H. JJolll.ml. '1'11<1 111 1 11",11 t 1011/.1 (,let forth ill pllrognlpll H of:
pl/llntl!t' (,I Complalllt are dOll led 1111 cOllclulll.oll1l of. lllw nHlul I.' 1 11\1 110
furtller r<lflpollall,
)I' DOllled. '1'110 III 109at 1011(,1 liut fOI:th 111 po rag l:aph 31; o/'
0, plaintltf'lJ Complalnt: lire dr!nll1d all r~ollchlaionll of: law rO'jul d n\] 110
f'lll:tlll!l;' J:ellpoIwe. l1y WilY 01' f:urthor anuwer, dntJwedllg dllfel1dllnt ill
without knowledge or 11lf:ormot ion aul'ficl.~nt to f:r)1'm l\ beUlIf: II/l to I:ill!
tJ:uth of the o311eglltiono [Jct forth in paragraph 35 of plnintJ.U'/1
Compla lnt, there I:o):"e anllW'.!l:" ing df! fendant denios allme and demllndu
atrict proof thereof: at the tlme of. I:rilll,
WlmIU,FOHE, defendallt reapnctfully rf!queata thia Court to grant
judgment in ita favor and ngalnat plllintiff piua coata,
COtlN'l' II 1
36, 'l'he IIvermenta of pllragrapha 1 through 35 ara incorporated
herein all though aet forth fully and at length,
37. Penied. Af tel' reallonable inveat igal:1on, anawel'ing defendant
ia without knowledge OJ: information nufficient to form a ballet all to
the truth of the allegationll net forth in paragraph 37 of plaintif:f's
Complaint, thel'efore answering defendant denies /Jame and demands
atrict proof thereof at the time of trial,
38, Penied.
'l'he a11egat ions Sl'lt forth in paragraph 38 of
plaJ.ntiff'a Complaint are denied ss conclusions of law rsquiring no
further response,
II
:19. Lltlllil!d, Aftar rflMlollllble invlIl!ti!Jatloll, ll'1I3wedllg dllfolldlllll'
ill wIthout IUlowlfldgtl or illfllrllllltio/l IIUf.r.I,r.JIe/lt to f.onn II balief. IIU to
thl! t/:uth of. the Illlegllt!.o'llI Illlt forth lon P/lJ:u'lJ:llph 3!/ of. pllll,nl:lf.I"1I
COlllpluillt, thtlrefoJ,'e ilnl!wrnillfj daftllldant deniell 111111111 .111<1 dOl11l1l1dll
/Jtdct proof tl1t1J:flof' at tha til11e of trilll,
40. Deniad, The Illlll\jl.ltiO'llI lIel: forth in pora\J1'aph 40 of
plaintlff'lJ COl11plaint lire denIed Ill! COl1clulliona of law requiring 110
further rfJUpOnlle, By way of. further anlJwer, anllwtlrillg defendant iu
without Itnowledgc or Infonl1l1tl.on sllf.fid,cnt to forl11 a belicf ae to thl!
tnll:h of the allegatIon/! set fOJ:th In paragraph 40 of plnintit:f'1I
COlllplalnt, therefore a'H1wering defendant denlee flalllC and dalllandll
IItrlct proof thereof lit tho til11e of trIal.
WHEREFORE, defendant rCflpectfully requellts thIs Court to cnter
judgl11ent in itu favor nnd agaInst plaIntiff plull COlJtll,
Q.OUNT IY
41. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 40 are Incorporated
hereIn aa aet forth fully and lit length,
42. Denied. The allegl\tlona aet forth In paragraph 42 of
plalntiff'a COl11plaint are denied liS conclullionll of law requiring 110
further reuponlle. By way of further anllwer, anllwering defendant
flpecificlIlly deniell that it llIade fraudulent reprellentations to
plaintiff aa to the quality and suitabilIty of any product
IlIl1nufactured by defendant.
43. Denied. After reallonable invelltigation, anllwering defendant
if.l without: knowledge or information Ilufficient to form a belief all to
the truth of the allegationll Ilet forth in paragraph 43 of plaintiff'f.I
6
Complaint, therefol'l:l IlnawednSl defendant deniea aal1111 IInd dlll11l1nda
atrict lH'oof thlll'l,of at the t imll of trial,
44, Denied, 'I'll" alil.igatlonu 'Hjt fm.tll In plll."llgl:'llph H 01'
plaintiff'a COl11plaint; al:'e denied CHI concluaiona of law l;oquldng no
fUl'l:hel: nHlponae, By way of further lHlaWC1', IlIHlwol:ing dlJf"ndl1nt 113
without Imowledge or inforl11l1t1on fJuff.1c1ont to forl11 II belief (\13 to tllo
trutll of the allflgal: 10na aet forth in paJ:llgl:aph H of plaint1U' fJ
Complaint, there fore IInawedng dllfendant denie/! aEll11e and del11ands
tltdct proof thel:'eof: al: the tillle of tdal.
4l1. Denied, 'l'he allegationa aet fOl:'th in paragraph 45 of:
plaintiff'a Complaint are denied Ela concluaiona of law requiring no
further reaponse, l3y way of: further IInllwer, defendant A. p, Green
apecifically deniea that ita conduct was intentional and outrageoull.
WHEREFORE, defendant reapectfully requeata thia Court to enter
judgl11ent in ita favor and again6t plaintiff plua coata,
~
46, Anowel:'ing defendant incorporatea the avel:'mento in paragraph/!
1 through 45 aa though aame were oet forth more fully herein at
length.
47-48, Denied. 'l'he al1egationll oct forth in paragrapho 47 and
48 of plaintiff'a Complaint al:'e denied aa concluoiona of law l:'equiring
no fUl:'thel:' reaponae.
WHEREFORE, defendant reapectfully requeata thia Court to enter
judgment in ita favor and against plaintiff plua coata.
NEW MATTIllR
49, Plaint if f faila to oet forth a cauae of action for which
relief can be granted.
7
50. Plaintiff'lI ohima aro parrod in wllolo and in pal:'t by tho
application IItatuto of limitationa,
51, l'hintif.f'a <.:laima ara parred in wholo or in pan,
l'lHltrictQd or diminiahod Py the application of the dC)(Jtrino of
cont:l~iputory negllU'lI1c!O al.l may be appliod to tho facta diaclolled in
d illc,)ve ry,
52. Plaint if f'lI cla ima Ill-0 parred in wholo or in pan,
ralltl'icted or diminillhl!ld by tho Pennaylvania Compnrativl!l Nl!lgligenco
Statute as may bo applied to the fncts dillclosed in discovery.
53. Plaintiff's claims 1ll:'1!l parrl!ld in whole or in part,
restricted or diminiahed Py the Ilpplication of tho doctrine of tho
IlIlSumpl:lon of the rilll( liS may bo applied to the facts discloaed in
discovery,
54, Plaintiff waa contributorily negligent,
55, Plaintiff was comparatively negligent.
56, Plaintiff'a cnuses of action alleged and Elny damages claimed
by plaintiff are the reaponaibility of individual a and/or entities
over whom answering defendant had no control nor right to control,
57. Any damages auatained Py plaintiff were not proximately
caused by any conduct of anowering defendant,
58, Plaintiff/s claims may be barred in whole or in part,
restricted or diminished by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction.
59. Plaintiff / s claims may be barred in whole or in part,
restricted or diminished by the doctrine of arbitration and aWard.
60. Plaintiff / s claims may be barred in whole or in part /
t'estricted or diminished pursuant to discharge of this claim in
bankruptcy,
8
61. Plaintiff'lI claimll mllY be bUl'l.'ed in wllolQ 01" in pan by tho
doctdnol1 of eatoppol lind/or immunity from 13uit, and/or lacheu and/oJ:
rea :judicata.
6:1, PlaintJ,ff'13 cloim/l my bu boned in whole 01" in put by the
dofcnsc of relQaae,
63, If it is proven that any product which wau delJigllcd,
manufacturcd, assembled 01" /lold by oll/lweJ."ing defendant Wall Involved in
the accidcnt upon which this action ia baaed, whlch allegation ill
exproosod which denied, thliln any damage which plaintiff may have
sUBtained wan not dUe to any defects in the product itself but was
caused by the substantial changIng, modification 01" alteration of the
product by purnons other than this defendant, which changes took place
after the product left the control of thio defendant.
64. If it is proven that any product which was designed,
manufactured, assembled or oold by the answering defendant was
involved in the accident upon which this actJ.on is based, which
allegation is expressly denied, then any in:jury which plaintiff may
have sustained was caused by the improper, abnormal, unforeseeable and
unintended use of this product by plaintiff and/or other persons after
the product left the control of this defendant.
65. The sole, proximate cause of any damages allegedly sustained
by plaintiff was the failure to apprise itself of the operating and
inlltallation instructions of the product in qUl.!!stion, and those
warnings included thereon, and his failure to follow those
instructions and warnings.
66. The product in question was not def.ective and was safe for
i~s intended and f.oreseeable uses.
9
TH. LAW ~~N O~
KILl-IAN III OIPHAI'lT
.
III ,IHI ""'"IT
,. 0, 10. I"
HAAAII.UAO, ,.INNIVI.VANIA 11I0loQ888
,lClllltr"JID COltV
"
,I
...
I\OVl\NCEP EtlO IN I:: ER 1m 8YS'I'IEMS,
INC, ,
IN TIlE COUH'l' OP COM~'ON 1>1,I::I\S
CUMBIi:RLl\NP COUNTY, 1~li:tlNSYLVI\NII\
1>ll1int iff
v,
NO, 96-608
1\, P, ORIi:EtI INPUS'I'R tES,
:NCORPORATED,
Pefendant
I i.: I V 1 L ACT ION
MSWJR TO HDW MA'l'TIR
'fhe averments of the complaint are incorporated hereby as if
set forth fully and at length, The numbel:ing of the New Matter is
adopted hereby,
01 9, Penied, The averments of this psragraph const lotute a
conclusion of law to which no reoponsive pleading is required, If
a reoponoive pleading io deemed required, it io specifically denied
that plaintiff fails to set forth a cause of action for which
relief can be granted.
50, penied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a
conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, If
a responsive pleading is deemed required, it io specifically denied
that I?laintl.ff's claims are barred lon whole or in part by any
applicable statute of limitations.
51. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a
conclusion of law to which no reoponsive pleading is required, If
a responaive pleading is deemed required, it is specifically denied
that Plaintiff's claims ar~ barred in whole and in part, restricted
or dimil1iahed, by th" Ilppl !.clltiun uf: I h" o!ucl.dnu OIr ,:ulltrllJutol,y
lIegligetluB ua may IJe upplltld to tho l:1I<:l:U diudolJud in ditl(~Ovllry.
52, Do:Jniod. 'l'ho /Iv,!):mollta ot thilJ panl~lrllph "Gnat itute a
<:ollo1ulliol1 of lfIw to which 110 roapollaive pleading iu required, If.
n rellponllive pleading ill doemod roquil'od, it ia upecifically donied
that Plallluff'll clul,mlJ Ilro barred ll1 ~Ih()illllnd tn pdrt, l'<HlU'l<:ted
or dimil1illhed, by the Pllnl10ylvanin Comparative Negligence Btatute
all may be applied to the factll diacloued in diucovery,
53, Penied, The avermentu of thia paragl'aph conlltitute n
conclusion of lfiw to which no respol1uive pleading io required, If
a responsive planding is deemed required, it ia apccitically denied
that Plaintiff's claima are barred ill whole and in part, restricted
or diminished, by the application ot the doctrine of the assumption
of the risk as may be upplio:Jd to the facts disclosed in discovery,
50\, Penied, The averments of this paragraph conl.\titute a
conclusion of law to which no responaive pleading ia required, If
a responsive pleading is deemed required, it is specifically denied
that Plaintiff was contributorily negligent.
55, Penied, The averments of this paragraph constitute a
concluaion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. If
a responsive pleading is deemed required, it is specifically denied
that Plaintiff was comparatively negligent.
56, Penied. The averments of this paragraph cQnstitute a
conclusion of law to which no responaive pleading is required, If
a responsive pleading is deemed required, it is specifically denied
that Plaintiff' a cauaes of action and damages claimed are the
rOlllponsibilay 0': lnlllvl<hlftl,J lind/oJ' Ilnt.ltloll OVI'l): whom f)ll':lllldllnl
h"d nQ Gont 1."01, nor l ho duht to 'lontro 1.
57, Denied. Tho 'l'I'll'ml'Hltll of thill paraUl."aph t:otHltitute "
condullion of law to which no r~lIpOnlllv" plellding ill rt9qllirl!d, If
a reaponaiva pleading ill de6ml!d l."l!qllired, it ill Ilpecificolly dl!lIiad
that any damllgell lIulltuLn13d by Plalntltt woro not proxlm3tuly ~dllllOd
by any conduct of D13fondnnt,
sa, Peniad, 'I'he IIvermenta of thia parngl."lIph conllt itUtll n
concluaion of law to which no l."eaponaive pleading ill l."equired. If
a raaponalva pleading ill d13l!med required, it is ap6cifically denilld
that Plaintiff'a claims may be barred in whole or in part,
reatricted or diml.nishlld, by the doctrino!! of aCClord and
satisfaction,
59, Penied, The averments of this paragraph conatitute a
concluaion of law to which no responaive pleading ia required, If
a reaponaive pleading is deomed required, it ia Ilpecifically donied
that Plaintiff's claima may be barred in whole or in part,
reatricted or diminished, by the doctrine of arbitration and award.
60. Penied. 'rhe averments of this paragraph canst itute a
conclusion of law to which 110 reaponsive pleading ia requJ,X'l!ld. If
a responsive pleading is deemed required, it is apecifically denied
that Plaintiff's claims may be barred in whole or in part,
restricted or diminished, pursuant to discharge of this claim in
bankruptcy,
61. Penied. The averments of thia paragraph conatitute a
conclusion of law to which no rellponsive pleading is required, If
a reaponaive pleading is deemed required, it ia specifically denied
that Plaintiff'l) elllillltl IlIi1Y bn l,hHT(td in whol,u or ill pnn:, by I'hll
doctrillell of <uJtoppel nnd/o).' ilt1ll111llity fl:'<lll1 /lult, nnd/oJ: In(:hol)
and/or rell judicata,
62, lJeniod, The aVarmallta of thia paragraph eOl1llt itute 11
concluaion of law to whir.:h no ra/lJ;lotl/Jivl'I pl<ll\dinu ill requinlll, If
Ii r.eapOn/llVe plea(llng 111 ,jIJullIud rllqull'll<i, J.t 11l UP"l:l t ll:ol _'I .lllllllld
that Plaintiff's claim" may be barred in whole or in part, by the
defenae of relcaae,
63, Peniad. It la specifically denied that Plaintiff' a
damages were not caulled by dafecta in the product provIded by
Pefendanta.
64, Denied. It ia "pecifically denied that Plaintiff uaed
Defendant"J product in any way which waa improper, abnormal,
unforeaeeable or unintended,
65. Denied, 'l'he avermentiJ of thia parllgraph conat itute II
concluaion of law to which no re/lponaive pleading ia requirad, If
a reaponaive pleading ia deemed required, it ia apecifically denied
that Plaintiff in any way failed to adviae itaelf Qf any applicable
instructiona and warnings,
66, Denied. 'I'he avermentll of this paragraph conatitute a
concluaion of law to which no responaive pleading ill required. If
a responsive pleading is deemed required, it is specifically denied
that the product in question waa not defective and was safe for its
intended and foreaeenble use,
67. Denied, After reasonable investigation, Plaintlff is
without information to form a belief aa to the truth of this
~., (,I
~I'
.,' ~.
1,,1 +!~ I
I,tl". ,
, "
["'
,.'
)1
II I .....1
fer ,',
Ci ' I "
I ", il!
" ,',:
u .:;,' , ,
'.